The chances of Obama receiving the Democratic nomination look better and better with each passing primary. For sure it will be McCain on the Republican side. Which one would win the Big Contest in November, and why?

ArizonaTeach

02-20-2008, 12:32 PM

The chances of Obama receiving the Democratic nomination look better and better with each passing primary. For sure it will be McCain on the Republican side. Which one would win the Big Contest in November, and why?I'd be pretty surprised if McCain won, even though I'll be voting for him. I'm not in the least convinced that Obama is the better candidate, but I just think a huge amount of people are far more interested in change than anything else. I don't know exactly what they think is gonna change, but I think they perceive that Obama is the candidate to make it happen.

Whiteknight

02-20-2008, 12:35 PM

The chances of Obama receiving the Democratic nomination look better and better with each passing primary. For sure it will be McCain on the Republican side. Which one would win the Big Contest in November, and why?
It's a long road until November, but at least right now, survey says... (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html)

Mosier

02-20-2008, 12:41 PM

I'd be pretty surprised if McCain won, even though I'll be voting for him. I'm not in the least convinced that Obama is the better candidate, but I just think a huge amount of people are far more interested in change than anything else. I don't know exactly what they think is gonna change, but I think they perceive that Obama is the candidate to make it happen.

McCain is a pretty big change, too, if we're comparing him to George W. I think people are voting for Obama because he inspires them, not because of what you're implying - that they're just a bunch of sheep buying into a campaign slogan.

To the OP, I think people are underestimating the Republicans' ability to influence public opinion. They're way, way better at it historically than Democrats are. Opinion polls can be in the gutter for a Republican candidate, election day comes, that candidate wins, and the next day everyone wonders just what they were thinking as the approval ratings tank again. It's like hypnotism.

I would certainly not be surprised if McCain beat Obama. Opinion polls mean nothing against Republicans.

BrainGlutton

02-20-2008, 12:44 PM

I expect Obama to win, but the Democrats have a knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

A lot might depend on whom Obama and McCain tap for running mates.

I really don't expect the "Obama is a Muslim" canards to have any traction with swing voters.

Mosier

02-20-2008, 12:58 PM

I expect Obama to win, but the Democrats have a knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Never attribute to malice what could be explained by brain damage and all that.

Martin Hyde

02-20-2008, 01:04 PM

@Mosier, the impression I've gotten is that the GOP traditionally has had a better ground game, at least the last few elections. In blow-outs like Clinton v. Dole it wasn't a big factor but in close races like the last two Presidential elections I was enough to swing the vote against the Dems.

I just remember going into election week both in 2000 and 2004 many polls were giving the Democratic candidate the lead. Does anyone remember that electoral-vote prediction website? It was giving Kerry a clear lead in the EC right at election day.

Is it possible that perhaps Democratic voters are more likely to be involved in the "random sample" of people who get polled? I don't know (I kind of doubt it--although I do know opinion polling has to factor in that some people who vote don't have telephones.)

Personally, with the Dems looking very popular now (look at election 2006) this is an election that most people are going to be calling for the Democrats from day one. While I always maintain the line that "it's impossible to predict a Presidential election this far out" I do feel Obama versus McCain, right now, would be an Obama victory.

Siam Sam

02-20-2008, 01:07 PM

To the OP, I think people are underestimating the Republicans' ability to influence public opinion. They're way, way better at it historically than Democrats are. Opinion polls can be in the gutter for a Republican candidate, election day comes, that candidate wins, and the next day everyone wonders just what they were thinking as the approval ratings tank again. It's like hypnotism.

I would certainly not be surprised if McCain beat Obama. Opinion polls mean nothing against Republicans.
Oh, don't get me wrong. Full disclosure: I'm an Obama man and have always voted Democratic despite never joining the party. BUT ... I have nothing against Republicans. In fact, some of the finest people I've known have been Republicans. I'm definitely not a Republican basher. I just like the Democrats' policies better in general.

But that's neither here nor there. I'm interested in who people think would win between the two and why.

dalej42

02-20-2008, 01:07 PM

Here (http://electoral-vote.com/evp2004/dec/dec31.html) is the map of the 2004 election. Obama's got to flip enough Red states to win.

Here (http://electoral-vote.com/evp2006/Maps/Dec31.html) is 2006. Ohio was very blue in 2006. If Obama can hold all the Kerry states and flip Ohio, Obama wins.

Realistically, there are only a few states in play. Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Florida, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

With the economy and the Iraq failures continuing, I see Ohio leaning blue. Very hard for McCain to make that up in other places.

Martin Hyde

02-20-2008, 01:12 PM

Here (http://electoral-vote.com/evp2004/dec/dec31.html) is the map of the 2004 election. Obama's got to flip enough Red states to win.

Here (http://electoral-vote.com/evp2006/Maps/Dec31.html) is 2006. Ohio was very blue in 2006. If Obama can hold all the Kerry states and flip Ohio, Obama wins.

Realistically, there are only a few states in play. Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Florida, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

With the economy and the Iraq failures continuing, I see Ohio leaning blue. Very hard for McCain to make that up in other places.

Iraq failures continuing? That's not a very reality-based view of what's actually happening in Iraq.

Add Virginia and Michigan to that. Virginia is becoming more of a battleground state every year, it isn't a guaranteed GOP state anymore (it's always been a state where the Dems frequently win state-level elections, but it has usually gone the way of the GOP in Presidential elections.)

Richard Parker

02-20-2008, 01:15 PM

Iraq failures continuing? That's not a very reality-based view of what's actually happening in Iraq.

Yes it is, so long as you don't re-define success to mean "only slightly less horrific death than last quarter".

Quartz

02-20-2008, 01:18 PM

Obama by a blow-out.

Lamar Mundane

02-20-2008, 01:18 PM

Also, I think more states are going to be in play than you think.

Add Virginia and Michigan to that. Virginia is becoming more of a battleground state every year, it isn't a guaranteed GOP state anymore (it's always been a state where the Dems frequently win state-level elections, but it has usually gone the way of the GOP in Presidential elections.)
And Colorado. Colorado is all but a guaranteed flip if Obama wins the nomination.

Martin Hyde

02-20-2008, 01:19 PM

Yes it is, so long as you don't re-define success to mean "only slightly less horrific death than last quarter".

This is the fundamental problem with how liberals look at the war. The success of a war has virtually nothing to do with the "amount of horrific death." Death is one of the defining characteristics of warfare, without it, war isn't war. One of the primary things that soldiers do during war is die. Typically a lot of civilians die, too.

No, you have to look at the strategic big picture to fully appreciate how a war is going. More American soldiers died in 1944 than they did in 1942, but 1944 was by far a better year, strategically, than 1942 was.

In Iraq, most of the groups which have been fighting against stability are far weaker now than they used to be. AQ in Iraq is far weaker than it used to be. Iraq has even started to hit important political benchmarks, one of the key necessities for long-term stability in Iraq.

I know Democrats want Iraq to fail, to be quite honest, considering their rhetoric over the past five years, they need it to fail. But even the media, which has long been definitively against the war, have stopped talking about it precisely because it has been going so well ever since the surge.

Spoke

02-20-2008, 01:21 PM

I believe the huge black turnout (and the huge youth turnout) Obama generates could potentially put some Southern states in play. I'm thinking particularly of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana. It may sound crazy, but maybe even Mississippi, given the size of the black population there (37%), and the fact that McCain doesn't exactly light fires under Southern conservatives.

Part of me hopes the primary campaign between Hillary and Obama continues to be fought through the Mississippi primary, since that would encourage a lot of voter registration there.

Richard Parker

02-20-2008, 01:21 PM

This is the fundamental problem with how liberals look at the war. The success of a war has virtually nothing to do with the "amount of horrific death." Death is one of the defining characteristics of warfare, without it, war isn't war. One of the primary things that soldiers do during war is die. Typically a lot of civilians die, too.

Irony in the extreme, Martin. It is Bush who has re-defined the war to be measured in American casualties, not the Democrats. We're the ones arguing all along that success should be measured in factors like political reconciliation. If you believe that too, then you're on the wrong side man.

Santo Rugger

02-20-2008, 01:22 PM

It's a long road until November, but at least right now, survey says... (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html)
:eek: Why is her party still letting her run? :smack:

Martin Hyde

02-20-2008, 01:22 PM

Irony in the extreme, Martin. It is Bush who has re-defined the war to be measured in American casualties, not the Democrats. We're the ones arguing all along that success should be measured in factors like political reconciliation. If you believe that too, then you're on the wrong side man.

That's never been the case. I'm sorry, but this is still great debates. Show me where Bush has said "we are going to define success and failure in Iraq based on our casualty figures." Just because he may mention that they have improved in X period doesn't mean he is "redefining" the success metrics for the war.

Primarily, when Democrats rail against the war the first thing they mention is how many of "our boys" (who they don't care about anymore than Bush does) are dying and then secondly they talk about the political instability. Don't pretend the Dems haven't been waving the body-bag count for five years now.

Martin Hyde

02-20-2008, 01:24 PM

I believe the huge black turnout (and the huge youth turnout) Obama generates could potentially put some Southern states in play. I'm thinking particularly of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana. It may sound crazy, but maybe even Mississippi, given the size of the black population there (37%), and the fact that McCain doesn't exactly light fires under Southern conservatives.

Part of me hopes the primary campaign between Hillary and Obama continues to be fought through the Mississippi primary, since that would encourage a lot of voter registration there.

It's long been my understanding that the key to winning Louisiana is being pro-life, at least that's how it has been explained to me by people who are from there.

Richard Parker

02-20-2008, 01:26 PM

That's never been the case. I'm sorry, but this is still great debates. Show me where Bush has said "we are going to define success and failure in Iraq based on our casualty figures." Just because he may mention that they have improved in X period doesn't mean he is "redefining" the success metrics for the war.

Primarily, when Democrats rail against the war the first thing they mention is how many of "our boys" (who they don't care about anymore than Bush does) are dying and then secondly they talk about the political instability. Don't pretend the Dems haven't been waving the body-bag count for five years now.

You're going to implore me for quotations when you follow-up with saying the Democrats don't care about soldiers dying? No thanks. It's a hi-jack anyway. But the surge's success absolutely was measured by the reduction in violence, not by political reconciliation. If you don't know that, I don't think any amount of quoting will make that sink in.

Martin Hyde

02-20-2008, 01:30 PM

My final prediction this thread, if nothing changes between now and November and Obama is the nominee:

Obama: 276
McCain: 261

Popular vote I think Obama will probably win by about the same margin Bush beat Kerry, if not more (remember Bush beat Kerry by around 2m in popular vote.) I think Obama will have some major blow-outs in states like Illinois, even more so than typically happens in strongly Democrat states. But ultimately I think the political battlefields are still too static for Obama to capture any states which aren't traditional battleground states. I expect McCain to win:

All of the states Bush won in 2004 except Ohio and New Mexico. McCain isn't going to use the protectionist rhetoric Obama has, so he's going to lose Ohio. And McCain's stance on immigration will probably lose him New Mexico. I think it's possible Colorado could go Obama too but I have my doubts.

So obviously I'm expecting Obama to win all of the states that Kerry did and also pick up Ohio and New Mexico. I think there's a chance Obama wins Colorado and even Virginia, but I'm not prepared to predict that right now.

It's also possible that Obama loses New Hampshire, McCain is really popular in that state for some reason, and it's the only New England state that is regularly even in play between Dems and Republicans. But I don't see the winner of New Hampshire's overall election fate improving either way. The election will primarily be decided in Ohio.

Martin Hyde

02-20-2008, 01:35 PM

You're going to implore me for quotations when you follow-up with saying the Democrats don't care about soldiers dying? No thanks. It's a hi-jack anyway. But the surge's success absolutely was measured by the reduction in violence, not by political reconciliation. If you don't know that, I don't think any amount of quoting will make that sink in.

So you don't want to provide a cite? Thanks, I'll just disregard your argument. Aside from refreshing your memory as to what the surge's purpose actually was. The surge's entire purpose was to reduce violence. And what comes after that? Well, if you had been paying attention you'd notice everyone from Bush to Petraeus have said the surge's purpose was to reduce violence so that political reconciliation would be possible. Once it was obvious the surge was succeeding in its first goal Democrats did start to point that no political reconciliation was forthcoming. Now that that has happened, Dems have basically stopped talking entirely (although they'll still mention all those dead soldiers they care so much about periodically.)

The surge was not just seeking to reduce violence for the sake of reducing violence. FTR I think it's an entirely rational viewpoint to have been opposed to the original invasion of Iraq. I think it's even entirely rational to say, "Bush messed this occupation up for four straight years." But it's not rational to try and ascribe motivations that just aren't there. Bush has never said the only metric for success is the number of American deaths per month, if you can show me him saying that even once, I'll mail you or PayPal you some money--but I know for a fact he never has.

Also note that when I said the Democrats didn't care about the soldiers, I said the GOP doesn't either. By and large politicians don't care about soldiers. I think the only exceptions are the very small number of politicians that have had to actually fight in a war, guys like John Kerry, Bob Kerry, John McCain et cetera. People like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, George Bush, are so separated from anything relative to warfare they only view "the American soldier" in a very theoretical sense. They view them as political pawns to be used one way or another and nothing else.

DigitalC

02-20-2008, 01:47 PM

This is the fundamental problem with how liberals look at the war. The success of a war has virtually nothing to do with the "amount of horrific death." Death is one of the defining characteristics of warfare, without it, war isn't war. One of the primary things that soldiers do during war is die. Typically a lot of civilians die, too.

No, you have to look at the strategic big picture to fully appreciate how a war is going. More American soldiers died in 1944 than they did in 1942, but 1944 was by far a better year, strategically, than 1942 was.

In Iraq, most of the groups which have been fighting against stability are far weaker now than they used to be. AQ in Iraq is far weaker than it used to be. Iraq has even started to hit important political benchmarks, one of the key necessities for long-term stability in Iraq.

I know Democrats want Iraq to fail, to be quite honest, considering their rhetoric over the past five years, they need it to fail. But even the media, which has long been definitively against the war, have stopped talking about it precisely because it has been going so well ever since the surge.

The war in Iraq is still failing because americans are still dying and they are not coming home yet, sadly thats the only thing people care about. Its not about how its going for the Iraquis but how its affecting the people here at home that affects votes. I wish it were different but i believe the war will continue to be a huge negative no matter how good things are as long as americans are still dying and the troops are not coming home.

Spoke

02-20-2008, 01:56 PM

It's long been my understanding that the key to winning Louisiana is being pro-life, at least that's how it has been explained to me by people who are from there.

Bill Clinton won Louisiana in '92 and again in '96.

Knorf

02-20-2008, 02:01 PM

Obama will beat McCain, is my guess, and I don't think it will be very close. It'd be similar to Clinton over Bush I in 1992.

This assumes nothing fundamental changes in terms of what is presently known as fact between now and then.

John Mace

02-20-2008, 02:02 PM

My final prediction this thread, if nothing changes between now and November and Obama is the nominee:

Obama: 276
McCain: 261

Popular vote I think Obama will probably win by about the same margin Bush beat Kerry, if not more (remember Bush beat Kerry by around 2m in popular vote.)
3M.

I think Obama beats McCain, too, but I think the current polls overestimate that win by quite a bit. Obama is the golden boy right now, and is basking in the sunlight. Some of that is bound to dim during the general election.

Richard Parker

02-20-2008, 02:02 PM

So you don't want to provide a cite? Thanks, I'll just disregard your argument. Great, I'll just apply the same standard to you and we're set!

Liberal

02-20-2008, 02:02 PM

Obama wins, and it's a landslide.

Spoke

02-20-2008, 02:04 PM

I think Obama beats McCain, too, but I think the current polls overestimate that win by quite a bit.

I agree. It will be a close-run thing. And I don't think the map will necessarily resemble the last two.

XT

02-20-2008, 02:07 PM

Obama wins for sure. Why? Because he will have (for the first time I can remember) the entire Democrat party behind him. He will pull in most if not all of the left wingers and he will pull in at least half of the center/independents (he will probably split the center with McCain).

On the other side of the house McCain will NOT pull in all of the right wing. I expect a lot of them to be unenthusiastic about voting in this election cycle so there will be no grass roots get out and vote initiatives from that faction. With McCain splitting the center with Obama that means McCain loses because it will be the base that makes the difference.

My prediction is that Obama wins at least as big as Clinton did in his second term...at least. Could be even bigger but don't want to get TO hyped up.

-XT

Siam Sam

02-20-2008, 02:14 PM

Obama wins, and it's a landslide.
That would be nice.

BTW: I have to say that the fact that Obama's parent's met as students at the University of Hawaii helps capture our sentimental side, because we met as students at the U of Hawaii. Yes, I know that's no reason to choose a president, but it sort of ties him in with our personal history. (There are plenty of reasons to like Obama, not just that his parents attended UH. :rolleyes: )

TWDuke

02-20-2008, 02:15 PM

in close races like the last two Presidential elections I was enough to swing the vote against the DemsPlease don't do it again.

McCain and Obama both appeal to the mushy middle. They'd also automatically get the votes of the members of their respective parties who would vote for Beelzebub if it meant keeping the other party out of the White House.

Obama also appeals to those who believe in the ideals of the party but who are not content to simply vote against the opposition, and those who don't give a turd about political parties. These two factions will make all the difference in November.

As for the famed right-wing smear machine, Obama's relative youth and lack of experience work to his advantage here. There's simply not as much material to work with as in the last two elections, and not nearly as much pre-existing animosity and mistrust to build upon.

Wee Bairn

02-20-2008, 02:21 PM

Wasn't it all the talk a year or two ago that the Dems could run Forest Gump and would be guaranteed a landslide victory because of how pissed the entire country was at the Republicans, and now there is a big debate who'll win, and McCain may have even been favored over HRC- what the hell happened since to make the polling so close?

DoctorJ

02-20-2008, 02:26 PM

To the OP, I think people are underestimating the Republicans' ability to influence public opinion. They're way, way better at it historically than Democrats are.
One of the reasons why I like Obama is that I don't think he'll let the GOP get the upper hand in this regard. Ever since his opponents (Dem and Rep alike) started to turn up the volume on the attacks, he has been ready to fight back, fast and hard. When the first suggestions that he had attended a "madrassa" as a child popped up, it was a matter of hours before his campaign was out there knocking it down and calling out the people who were spreading it.

All indications show that he has learned from Kerry's 2004 disaster. He seems willing to show up to the gunfight with a gun.

Obama also has a motivated ground staff like the Dems haven't seen in a while. Kerry and 2000-era Gore just didn't get anyone that excited. People liked them well enough, and they were certainly motivated against W, but that's not the same. I just don't see McCain inspiring the same kind of dedication, especially since he isn't all that popular among the evangelicals and other hard-right groups that generally provide a lot of the ground game manpower.

I also think McCain is going to fall to a bit of the Giuliani Effect--the more he campaigns and people get to know him, the less they like him. He didn't really become the nominee by winning much of anybody over; he was just the least unappealing option they had. A lot of people still see him as a "maverick", but that isn't likely to hold up under the scrutiny of the general election.

So yeah, Obama by a lot.

Liberal

02-20-2008, 02:32 PM

It's the economy that's going to kill McCain. His two chief economic advisors, Kemp and Peterson, despise each other. They're both disgruntled Keynesians, but deformed in opposite ways. He's already confused about the issues, but being pushed and pulled by those two, he's going to let out some mighty big gaffes and be extremely easy to confuse when questions are thrown at him. Obama, on the other hand, has some of the best economic advisors in the nation, including a Chicago School sympathizer at the top. McCain is going to lose his temper, because he doesn't like looking stupid, but stupid is exactly how he's going to look. And when he blows a gasket, it will all be over.

Voyager

02-20-2008, 02:33 PM

Obama wins, and it's a landslide.
I'm with him. First of all, Obama is going to look even younger and fresher up against the oldest man ever to run for president. Second, and most important, McCain has a big problem. If he moves right to appeal to the conservatives who now hate him, he's going to lose the independent vote. If he moves left, to appeal to them, the conservatives sit on their hands and stay away from the polls. Obama doesn't have that problem.

While Democrats have been incompetent, they certainly weren't in 2006. Obama is going to be a lot harder to swift boat also. First, he is very likable (unlike Hillary) and second, someone trying it might easily run into the race card. Look what happened to Allen. I'd also hope that McCain would put an end to any such thing, but I've pretty much lost faith in him after he kissed Shrub's ass in 2004.

Siam Sam

02-20-2008, 02:34 PM

I also think McCain is going to fall to a bit of the Giuliani Effect--the more he campaigns and people get to know him, the less they like him. He didn't really become the nominee by winning much of anybody over; he was just the least unappealing option they had. A lot of people still see him as a "maverick", but that isn't likely to hold up under the scrutiny of the general election.
I would also think that some people -- such as myself, but others, too- -- will think that McCain is just too old.

Jophiel

02-20-2008, 02:35 PM

I just remember going into election week both in 2000 and 2004 many polls were giving the Democratic candidate the lead. Does anyone remember that electoral-vote prediction website? It was giving Kerry a clear lead in the EC right at election day.Electoral-Vote.com showed a virtual tie (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/nov/nov02.html) before election day with a large number of "barely blue/red" states.

That's not to say polling works or doesn't but you're making an unfair attack on the website itself.

Wee Bairn

02-20-2008, 02:37 PM

. If he moves left, to appeal to them, the conservatives sit on their hands and stay away from the polls.

No matter how bad they may not like McCain I can't see them doing this and allowing Obama an easy victory- if nothing else they'll be hoping McCain dies from old age in office and his VP takes over. :)

dalej42

02-20-2008, 02:48 PM

I just don't see McCain inspiring the same kind of dedication, especially since he isn't all that popular among the evangelicals and other hard-right groups that generally provide a lot of the ground game manpower.

This is another excellent point. You're not going to get the same type of frenzy this year. Same sex marriage has not just been legalized in Massachussetts. Janet Jackson's breast wasn't shown during the Super Bowl. You're not going to get the "Vote for McCain, vote for God." type dedication as the evangelicals had in 2004. Too many Republican sex scandals and the Schiavo debacle have taken the winds out of their sails.

Spoke

02-20-2008, 02:57 PM

One thing that concerns me is this core of elderly white voters who keep voting for Hillary. It happened again in Wisconsin. Makes me wonder if there might be some generational racism at work. If so, would those voters go with Obama in the general election, or would they slide over to McCain?

gonzomax

02-20-2008, 03:09 PM

Whether blue staters will pull the lever for a black remains to be seen. I fear bigotry is more pronounced than most people apparently do. I am still a skeptic.
I have no trouble voting for him. I expect to. McCain is a war monger and I have seen enough. He has to explain 100 years of war.
I hope Obama wins but I am unsure.

XT

02-20-2008, 03:15 PM

Whether blue staters will pull the lever for a black remains to be seen. I fear bigotry is more pronounced than most people apparently do. I am still a skeptic.

:rolleyes: Have you been keeping up with current events?? When is this supposed American bigotry supposed to kick in exactly? AFTER Obama gets the nomination? Look at the numbers of people voting for the man (not the percentages the actual numbers) and compare and contrast that with the numbers of voters voting for McCain. Good grief man...look at the friggin numbers! One would think that in actuality American's are prejudiced against old white guys...

-XT

Duckster

02-20-2008, 03:20 PM

There is considerable time to arm-twist, threaten, plead, buy, promise, etc., between the last Democratic primary in early June and the Democratic convention in late August. It ain't over until the fat lady sings, and Hillary will do whatever her ego takes to ensure she sings her aria acceptance speech at the convention.

EddyTeddyFreddy

02-20-2008, 03:24 PM

On the other side of the house McCain will NOT pull in all of the right wing. I expect a lot of them to be unenthusiastic about voting in this election cycle so there will be no grass roots get out and vote initiatives from that faction. With McCain splitting the center with Obama that means McCain loses because it will be the base that makes the difference.
Take a look at the results in Washington (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#WA) for the Republicans, with 57% of the precincts reporting:

McCain: 49%
Huckabee: 22%
Romney: 20%
Paul: 7%

Romney isn't even a candidate any more, yet he took nearly half as many votes as McCain. Between them, the two candidates positioned as social conservatives got nearly as many votes as McCain.

Now, maybe Washington is an outlier; certainly it wasn't nearly so close in Michigan; but results like that suggest McCain has some real problems holding onto his base. Without the long-loathed Hillary to galvanize them, he can't count on a massive turnout from that segment of the party.

XT

02-20-2008, 03:55 PM

Exactly. Thanks for the cite btw.

-XT

Chefguy

02-20-2008, 03:57 PM

McCain is a pretty big change, too, if we're comparing him to George W.

I'm honestly interested in how you arrived at that conclusion. In 2000, it was true; today, it's completely false. McCain has recanted nearly every position he said he held, and realigned himself in Bush's image. He's now pandering to the religious right that he once eschewed, he's recanted on his own immigration reform proposal, he's recanted his criticism of the war; I can't honestly think of any issues he hasn't reversed himself on.

Voyager

02-20-2008, 04:03 PM

I'm honestly interested in how you arrived at that conclusion. In 2000, it was true; today, it's completely false. McCain has recanted nearly every position he said he held, and realigned himself in Bush's image. He's now pandering to the religious right that he once eschewed, he's recanted on his own immigration reform proposal, he's recanted his criticism of the war; I can't honestly think of any issues he hasn't reversed himself on.
And since Bush backed a reasonable immigration reform plan, McCain is more far right than Bush. I suspect his praise of Bush is going to come back and haunt him.

Onomatopoeia

02-20-2008, 04:17 PM

My take is Obama will wipe the floor with McCain...and just barely eke out a win.

Face it, Obama is not a great debater. However, a wall could out-debate McCain, so Obama wins there.

Obama will continue exhibiting his formidable oratory prowess to great effect, and get even more Republicans to switch over to him. However, if there's one thing the republican party and their surrogates know how to do is fight and fight dirty. I predict much digging into Obama's personal life to dig up skeletons, and manufacturing a few if none are found. After all, it doesn't have to be true to be believed, especially by folks who may be predisposed to believing anything that confirms a negative stereotype, and especially about a Black man.

...speaking of Black men, Obama is one. There are many people, even democrats, who will not vote for a Black man no matter what. I know. I work with quite a few. As an aside, to many where I work, that Obama has gotten as far as he has is not only unbelievable, but fear evoking. And I'm not talking about folks from Appalachia here. Most of my coworkers and business associates have advanced degrees and are respected in my industry, not that educated people can't be racist, but a higher number than I would consider average find the continuing and seemingly increasing Obama phenomena disturbingly inexplicable.

Bottom line is I believe Obama will probably be the next POTUS, which is more than I believed a short six months ago, and which I expressed then on this very board, but I don't believe it'll be anything like a landslide.

Shodan

02-20-2008, 04:37 PM

On the other side of the house McCain will NOT pull in all of the right wing. I expect a lot of them to be unenthusiastic about voting in this election cycle so there will be no grass roots get out and vote initiatives from that faction. With McCain splitting the center with Obama that means McCain loses because it will be the base that makes the difference.I think the idea that McCain is disliked by the right wing is somewhat overstated. He managed to beat Romney almost as easily as he did the liberal Republican Giuliani and the most socially conservative candidate, Huckabee.

My prediction is that Obama wins at least as big as Clinton did in his second term...at least. Could be even bigger but don't want to get TO hyped up.
Hmn. You do recollect, do you not, that Clinton did not get a majority of the popular vote in his re-election bid either?
Wasn't it all the talk a year or two ago that the Dems could run Forest Gump and would be guaranteed a landslide victory because of how pissed the entire country was at the RepublicansNot to mention more than a few threads predicting a Kerry landslide a few years before that.

This campaign hasn't even started yet.

Yes, yes - I know the Usual Suspects are going to howl with outrage at the idea that McCain is actually going to try to win against Obama. And I have no doubt that the very first campaign ad McCain runs that suggests that Obama is not God's younger son will be met with screams of "MCCAINLIEDBADEVILRACISTHATEMONGERBURNHIMWORSETHANBUSHIRAQ!!!" and so forth. But it's gonna happen nonetheless.

What counts is how it plays in Peoria, among the center. Whoever the Dems pick would get at least 80% support on the SDMB no matter what. That is not necessarily true out in the real world.

Regards,
Shodan

XT

02-20-2008, 04:42 PM

I think the idea that McCain is disliked by the right wing is somewhat overstated. He managed to beat Romney almost as easily as he did the liberal Republican Giuliani and the most socially conservative candidate, Huckabee.

He managed to win, to be sure...but I see a very vocal minority of the right wingers who seem VERY opposed to McCain. YMMV, but I think it would take a fully unified Republican party shoulder to shoulder behind McCain for him to even have a chance...and I'm not seeing that shoulder to shoulder commitment from the social conservative right wing faction (among others).

Hmn. You do recollect, do you not, that Clinton did not get a majority of the popular vote in his re-election bid either?

No...I didn't recall that. You are saying Clinton didn't win the popular vote in his re-election bid? Not that I doubt you here but I didn't know that...do you have a cite?

If it was a bad example then how about Reagan in his re-election bid? I expect Obama to do that well.

-XT

Richard Parker

02-20-2008, 04:45 PM

Clinton took 49.2%, Perot took 8%.

XT

02-20-2008, 04:51 PM

Oh...that's right. I had forgotten Perot ran again in '96. Sorry...

ETA: But Dole only got like 41% IIRC...so it wasn't really very close even if he didn't win the popular vote. The popular vote being pretty much meaningless anyway since we don't use a popular vote system to elect presidents.

-XT

SpartanDC

02-20-2008, 04:51 PM

Obama, by quite a bit, at least in the EC. With him on the ballot I'm pretty sure Colorado and Virginia turn blue. Ohio would turn blue with either him or Clinton on the ballot. All the other blue states stay blue, and most of them will be "more blue" than they were in 2004.

Plus, Obama's ground game is *ridiculously* good. They're always one step ahead of where they need to be in terms of rolling out money, ads, offices and staff. McCain hasn't been able to afford, and now doesn't even need, such organization. The fact that the Democratic race will be decided in part by Ohio is very good for Obama: He'll lay tracks there that will ensure he wins it again in November.

Richard Parker

02-20-2008, 04:56 PM

Oh...that's right. I had forgotten Perot ran again in '96. Sorry...

ETA: But Dole only got like 41% IIRC...so it wasn't really very close even if he didn't win the popular vote. The popular vote being pretty much meaningless anyway since we don't use a popular vote system to elect presidents.

-XT

Right. The point is that we won by almost 10 points, and by proportionally larger margin in the EC.

John Mace

02-20-2008, 05:00 PM

Right. The point is that we won by almost 10 points, and by proportionally larger margin in the EC.
Yes. Although "landslide" can be used to refer to the popular vote, it usually means who won so in the EC and/or by sweeping the states, which is easy to do without winning the popular vote by much. The popular vote means nothing in terms of winning.

Shodan

02-20-2008, 05:01 PM

He managed to win, to be sure...but I see a very vocal minority of the right wingers who seem VERY opposed to McCain. YMMV, but I think it would take a fully unified Republican party shoulder to shoulder behind McCain for him to even have a chance...and I'm not seeing that shoulder to shoulder commitment from the social conservative right wing faction (among others).
Maybe. McCain is pro-life, and I suspect that is the No. 1 issue for those social conservatives.
No...I didn't recall that. You are saying Clinton didn't win the popular vote in his re-election bid? Not that I doubt you here but I didn't know that...do you have a cite?How about this one? (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32751) :D

I kid, I kid - here's (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01EFD61038F935A35752C1A960958260) a real one.
If it was a bad example then how about Reagan in his re-election bid? I expect Obama to do that well.
Wow - that would surprise me. Reagan sure didn't get his margin of re-election from his base.

But like I say, this campaign is not started yet. Let's see how Obama looks once some of the new-car smell wears off him, and after he actually sews up the nomination., and everybody who voted for Hilary realizes she ain't gonna be the Co-President again.

Regards,
Shodan

Captain Lance Murdoch

02-20-2008, 05:18 PM

You can add Missouri to the list of swing states.

Let's also see how McCain looks after everyone gets a closer look at him as well and gets beyond the "maverick" label to see how close he really is to Bush. Let's also see what happens with the economy. It is going to have to pick up for McCain to have a chance. Stagflation will kill him. Let's also see what happens in Iraq. Sadr may call off the cease-fire at the end of this week and that would make things worse.

Bottom line, if the economy stays out of the tank and if Iraq stays at it's current level of carnage then McCain stays where he is (a decided underdog in Las Vegas). If things get worse on either front it could turn into a route.

Bill Door

02-20-2008, 05:18 PM

None, or very few, anyway, of those conservatives that are upset at McCain are going to vote Democratic, so forget that, and they'll probably still vote Republican, on the theory that McCain is still better than Obama. What they won't do is donate money, volunteer to canvass their neighborhood, and staff phone trees. The direct effect will not be on their voting habits, but the more moderate voters who might have been convinced by an energized conservative base.

The lukewarm support of the conservative base will cost McCain moderate votes. On top of that the close election is going to mean that big corporate donations are going to be more closely matched, with contributions to both parties. Nobody's going to want to be left backing a loser.

The election is going to be a lot closer than people around here seem to think. I don't know if it's bravado or gamesmanship from the Obama supporters, but if Obama wins, it won't be by much, and he could lose. There may be wailing and gnashing of teeth aplenty.

BrainGlutton

02-20-2008, 05:23 PM

...speaking of Black men, Obama is one. There are many people, even democrats, who will not vote for a Black man no matter what. I know. I work with quite a few. As an aside, to many where I work, that Obama has gotten as far as he has is not only unbelievable, but fear evoking. And I'm not talking about folks from Appalachia here. Most of my coworkers and business associates have advanced degrees and are respected in my industry, not that educated people can't be racist, but a higher number than I would consider average find the continuing and seemingly increasing Obama phenomena disturbingly inexplicable.

Bottom line is I believe Obama will probably be the next POTUS, which is more than I believed a short six months ago, and which I expressed then on this very board, but I don't believe it'll be anything like a landslide.

I'm flashing on a scene in Head of State, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_State_%28film%29) when the early returns from the East Coast show Gilliam (the black candidate) in the lead, and all the white people on the West Coast run to the polls screaming! :p

Sal Ammoniac

02-20-2008, 05:26 PM

By rights, Obama should win. Americans are sick of a war with no end in sight, sick of high gas prices, sick of the erosion of civil liberties -- sick of everything Republican, in short.

And yet... is it ever wise in a presidential race to bet against the old white Protestant guy?

Voyager

02-20-2008, 05:27 PM

I think the idea that McCain is disliked by the right wing is somewhat overstated. He managed to beat Romney almost as easily as he did the liberal Republican Giuliani and the most socially conservative candidate, Huckabee.

Regards,
Shodan
Giuliani beat himself. Romney and Huckabee split the conservative vote, giving McCain the win. The fact that Huckabee, a dead man walking, is still racking up a lot of votes doesn't bode well for the far right's love of McCain.

As an anecdote, I read the comments on an ABC report about how many Republicans are not happy with their candidates. Though they are not a fair sample (Paul supporters over-represented) the general consensus seemed to be that McCain is somewhat to the left of Stalin.

I'm not sure that pro-life is going to override McCain's support of immigration rights and his vote against the tax cut.

DKW

02-20-2008, 06:48 PM

Remember Bob Dole, Sal? Bit of bad timing, perhaps, but it proves that the old white guy cannot always just sit back and coast.

Anyway, nearly everyone's had good points, and I honestly can't even find anything to debate about them (except for Martin Hyde, but I'm NOT going to hijack this). I'd just like to point out a couple of factors that haven't been mentioned yet which are going to be big obstacles for McCain: the media and the increasing irrelevance of 9/11.

There was a time when the right owned the media. And I don't just mean partisan shills like Fox News, I mean across the board, lock, stock, and barrel. Where was the condemnation for the PATRIOT Act? Warrentless wiretapping? Signing statements? It took a bunch of naked men before we heard a word about the Guantanamo abuses, for crying out loud. But the thing is, this isn't blind loyalty. The media was soft on the right because it was good for them; good for ratings, good for publicity, and, oh yeah, good money. Now that the abuses are piling up (and with absolutely no end in sight), supporting the right wing isn't so good anymore. Remember when no news magazine dared being even the slightest bit critical of the Iraq campaign? Now barely two weeks go by without a new indictment.

Sure, they'll go to bat for McCain for a while, explain how he totally deserves the Republican nomination, but he can forget about the slavish, uncritical devotion and truly demented criteria (The candidate you'd most like to have a beer with! The candidate who doesn't make you look dumb! The candidate who throws the best parties!) Dubya got all the time. In fact, Obama may actually have the advantage here; we hear all the time about his charisma, speaking ability, and ability to cross dividing lines (and jumping-jack squat on his Iraq voting record and lack of clear policy objectives. Can McCain win this fight? Anything's possible, but it looks like a big no to me.

Then there's 9/11...and make no mistake about it, Dubya would've had a much harder time of it without the unbelievable amount of free passes he got from that. And even though things were starting to go south in '04 in Iraq, it hadn't reached bottom-completely-fallen-out territory yet. Well, the bottom's fallen out, Afghanistan isn't exact a beacon of freedom either, oil prices have shot through the roof, our international credibility is in ruins, Osama Bin Laden (remember him?) has not faced any punishment, and everyone who boycotted French's mustard or ran a truck over Dixie Chicks CDs have been exposed as the the brainless pathetic slobbering yahoos they were. And (Martin Hyde's diehard reassurances notwithstanding) a great many Americans have a serious problem with using a real tragey to get mired in an endless money-gobbling life-destroying quagmire with at most marginal benefits. The quick fix is over, the magic wand has run out of charges, and it's just not possible to ride 9/11 to victory anymore. Look at how quickly Rudy Giuliani flamed out.

Y'know what, though? I don't want McCain to go quietly. I want him to claw, scratch, bite, kick, and stomp every step of the way. I want to see a Republican who's willing to FIGHT his opponent and EARN his victories rather than sitting on his butt and letting the sycophanthic media and handlers and radio talk show hosts and Swiftboat veterans do all the work for him. If it becomes clear that he doesn't have a chance, I want him to go down swinging; if he has a chance, I want him to fight to the last drop of blood. I want this because I know Obama is an unproven quantity, and if he's allowed to coast, he'll end up just another Bill Clinton. Competition is what keeps the parties honest and makes them earn their keep. Republicans were hopelessly corrupted by having a free ride for years, and Democrats getting the same isn't a positive development.

We'll see...

DSeid

02-20-2008, 08:44 PM

It's been said but I will also jump in ...

An Obama blow-out.

He will have the highly energized Democratic base coming out, a larger than usual number of those who may often vote Democratic but don't come out well in most elections, a large percentage of independent voters, and even some Obamacans.

Meanwhile McCain while be trying to tread between getting his base to come out for him and attracting independents. The result will be he'll get neither in large numbers. Both will feel that he, of all people, is pandering and not authentic. Obama will win by over 10% of the popular vote and maybe even approach Reagan's 1984 18% margin. I suspect that even the electoral college will be a landslide, although Reagan's record will stand there.

My only insecurity is that I may be underestimating the magnitude of the win.

Siam Sam

02-20-2008, 11:27 PM

Just because the evangelicals and hard-core conservatives don't like McCain, that does not mean they'll vote for Obama, or even stay home on voting day. They'll hold their noses and vote McCain.

BrainGlutton

02-21-2008, 11:59 AM

And I have no doubt that the very first campaign ad McCain runs that suggests that Obama is not God's younger son will be met with screams of "MCCAINLIEDBADEVILRACISTHATEMONGERBURNHIMWORSETHANBUSHIRAQ!!!" and so forth.

And you know that's not true. We already know McCain (1) is pro-war; (2) conservative; (3) way too old; (4) hotheaded and ill-tempered; (5) cheated on his first wife with his second; (6) might have had an affair with a lobbyist but probably not -- and that's it. That's all the mud that sticks. Anything else would have come out by now. Otherwise, even his opponents respect him. Nothing that happens between now and November is going to bring him down to Bush's level in our eyes.

Shayna

02-21-2008, 03:25 PM

This could get interesting. McCain faces potential FEC dilemma (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/21/mccain-faces-potential-fec-crisis/)

Likely Republican nominee John McCain – who has tangled with potential Democratic rival Barack Obama over public financing of their general election campaigns – was told by the Federal Election Commission Thursday that his own bid to withdraw from the primary season version of that system may have hit some roadblocks.

. . .

The commission needs to vote on his application – but a battle between President Bush and Congress over potential FEC nominees means they have not had the quorum needed to decide on such a request so far this year.

They also say they want to learn more about a loan McCain received where potential payouts to come under the public financing system may have been used as collateral.

. . .

If his withdrawal is denied, then McCain may have already spent more on his presidential bid than is allowed under FEC guidelines, and would not be able to spend more until he receives his party’s nomination this summer.

DoctorJ

02-21-2008, 04:23 PM

Just because the evangelicals and hard-core conservatives don't like McCain, that does not mean they'll vote for Obama, or even stay home on voting day. They'll hold their noses and vote McCain.
Not all of them. Some of them, maybe even most of them, but not all. And those people (the base) don't just provide votes--they staff the phone banks, knock on doors, drive the GOTV vans, cajole their friends to vote, etc.

If your "base" is 25% of voters, and 10% of them don't bother to come out to vote, that 2.5% is almost GWB's whole margin of victory in 2004. It makes a difference.

Shodan

02-21-2008, 04:32 PM

And you know that's not true.
However, questioning the intent of another poster in making an arguably false statement--e.g., "You are a liar", "You are lying", "That is a lie", "That's not true and you darned well know it isn't true"--is crossing the line into attacking the other poster rather than attacking the other poster's arguments, and will be considered a violation of the rules of the forum.Perhaps you would care to withdraw the statement.

Regards,
Shodan

gonzomax

02-21-2008, 04:38 PM

I think the Democrats do not understand the depth of disgust the voters are feeling for the war and the lack of action by them. They did not understand why they were put in 2 years ago. However the warmongering,budget busters did not figure out how to temper anger. Therefore the repubs will get slapped again.

wring

02-21-2008, 04:57 PM

Perhaps you would care to withdraw the statement.

Regards,
Shodan
of course since Brain Glutton was responding to your prediction of the future (if McCain does this, then Obama/supporters will do that), don't know that shouldn't be seen as a "I don't agree" vs. 'you know that's not true'. BG should have used that, or perhaps "how can you possibly claim that you know the future?"

Much of political "debate" comes down to the "oh yea" version at some point. In the course of human events it'd be a very unlikely occurance that two different politicians would have exactly the same set of events happen so we could actually tell what 'the other side' would do if their guy (generic version of the word, inclusive of all genders) did the same thing.

Shodan

02-21-2008, 05:06 PM

deleted

MEBuckner

02-22-2008, 02:08 PM

And you know that's not true.
Moderator's Note: Of course you don't know he knows that's not true. (Unless you're psychic.) So why the need to speculate on what's inside his head?

Ocean Annie

02-22-2008, 06:10 PM

I know Democrats want Iraq to fail, to be quite honest, considering their rhetoric over the past five years, they need it to fail. But even the media, which has long been definitively against the war, have stopped talking about it precisely because it has been going so well ever since the surge.

Democrats don’t want Iraq to fail. Democrats, and probably many Republicans, view Iraq as a dismal failure. The war was justified with inaccurate intelligence and a flawed, reckless belief in U.S. military supremacy as a means to accomplish Bush's foreign policy. The invasion of Iraq represents a fundamental failure in the process of American government and casts doubt on the competence of our elected officials. The war has been used as a means for the president to gain unprecedented executive power, slash government spending on social programs, and downsize government to a skeleton.

I think Obama will win easily if he stays on message about ending the occupation, healthcare, and the numerous social needs of the country.